Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology

3. Political Economy and Social Fields

Chapter 3 Political Economy and Social Fields William Roseberry This essay outlines an approach to anthropological political economy that is concerned with: (a) the social relations and institutions through which control over fundamental resources is controlled and expressed; (b) the relations and institutions through which social labor is mobilized and appropriated; and (c) the location of these points of control within specific social fields. This approach differs from world-systems theories in that it is, from one vantage, broader and, from another vantage, more specific. It is broader in that its concern for control ofresources and labor is not limited to capitalism . It is more specific in that it rejects the attempts of world-systems theories to explain local processes and relations in terms of the dynamics and needs ofglobal capitalism. Instead, it concentrates on the specifically local construction and shaping of power relations, including those that have their source outside of particular regions. A central concern, here, is how "external" forces are "internalized." The concept of "social field" is central to this effort, and I begin by discussing an intersection between the anthropological literature on political economy with an older anthropological discussion offields. Basic Concepts An Apparent Detour In a recent review essay, Irene Silverblatt (1991) examines the literature on women and state formation. Criticizing Engels-inspired feminist literature that sought the "origins" of gender hierarchies in the formation of tribu75 76 Building a New BiocuItural Synthesis tary states or the institution ofprivate property (e.g., Leacock 1972, 1978; Sacks 1974, 1982; Gailey 1987), Silverblatt draws our attention to specific historical contexts, particularly processes of state formation and relations ofgender. She claims further: New studies in "culture and political economy" question the implications of evolutionary laws and functionalist explanations, along with the utility of global typologies of humankind. Not only is the validity of categories like "state" and "status" up for review, not only do we question "origins" frameworks that have subtly, or not so subtly, shaped anthropological investigations into gender, but we are querying the nature, limitations, and possibilities of theorizing itself, of understanding and explaining social process.... As we place historical explanation in historical process, we can better perceive analytical problems tied to origin quests. As many contemporary debunkers have pointed out, origin-oriented research ends up distorting historical process by envisioning history as the unfolding of prepackaged essences. The equation of change with the "origin's" unfolding takes for granted a kind of global homogenization of historical experience. Whatever is essentialized (in our case, the "subordination ofwomen") is rendered an assumed fact oflife. Its basic, fundamental form-associated with its "origin" in simpler social arrangements (the tributary as opposed to bourgeois industrial state)-is presumed to underlie its manifestations in more complex configurations. Consequently, what should be accounted for is instead "naturalized," removed from historical investigation. As an "essential " thing, the "origin," much like the social type, is conceptualized apart from its historical form and experienced context. (1991,153-54) It might at first appear that Silverblatt's essay is another entry in a long-standing anthropological debate between history and evolution, the idiographic and the nomothetic, the local and the general. Such an interpretation would represent a profound misreading, however. Though she is clearly signaling the importance of historical context and specific or particular relationships, experiences, and meanings, her criticism of conceptual categories and essentialist assumptions is based on an understanding ofhistory and evolution that can transcend the oppositions through which the issues are commonly discussed. In this essay, I wish to explore certain aspects of this understanding, especially the "culture and political econ- Political Economy and Social Fields 77 omy" approach to which Silverblatt alludes. Although Silverblatt (1991, 142) points to two recent intellectual movements (postmodernism and Marxist cultural studies) that have questioned basic categories and inspired her own reconsiderations, I examine an older anthropological tradition in cultural history-one that has been ignored in both postmodernist and cultural studies intellectual genealogies. Unlike most of the essays in this volume, this essay does not specifically address biological questions or biocultural syntheses, but it reviews an approach to political economy that is necessary for such a synthesis. Social Fields We can begin with two important papers by Alexander Lesser (both republished in Mintz 1985). In the first ("Evolution in Social Anthropology ," written in 1939 and published in 1952), Lesser, a student of Boas, attempted to draw a balance sheet at the conclusion of...